IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , political speculation

Reply
Old 16th November 2016, 04:14 PM   #641
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Turnout was way down this year which seems to be a better problem to address than trying to figure out how to win back voters swayed by the Republican's platform of white primacy without losing minority voters.
Fixing turnout is easy. Make peoples votes count for something.

Stop using a FPTP system and change to a system where people rank candidates in order of preference and if your first choice candidate finished last then your vote counts towards your second choice candidate and so on.

If you can happily vote 3rd party as your first choice without your vote being wasted then there'd be more 3rd parties to choose from too.

We'd get a more representative democracy, people would be more engaged in the political process and more people would vote.

Sadly this would need to be put into place by a political party that had just won an election using the old system, and who would be therefore unlikely to ever win as much power again, so it'll probably never happen, but I can dream.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:16 PM   #642
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'd like a link to your source please.
Having trouble linking, but Reuters poll 28 June 2016 should find it for you.

It was online but with a sample size of 16000.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:17 PM   #643
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Clearly a lack of imagination on my part. Like I said - I never imagined that Clinton would lose. It's still a bit like the Twilight Zone.
Ugh. And Trump's like that kid with super-powers who keeps his entire town hostage.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:18 PM   #644
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Fixing turnout is easy. Make peoples votes count for something.

Stop using a FPTP system and change to a system where people rank candidates in order of preference and if your first choice candidate finished last then your vote counts towards your second choice candidate and so on.
Wonder how long it'd take them to count the votes, then, considering they're still not done a week later.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:19 PM   #645
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25,515
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This year, I didn't think there was a snowball's chance in a summertime hell of Clinton losing the election, so a third party vote seemed completely innocuous. I didn't expect the republican overhaul of congress either.
I was planning on voting for Gary Johnson, but as the polls tightened up and all the news coverage of the last week was anti-Hillary, I changed my mind. I didn't want to take the chance that I contributed to his victory.

When I got up on election day, I expected Clinton to win. As I drove to work, listening to news reports, I began to doubt. As I started watching returns. I got nervous. Then.....Wisconsin.....Pennsylvania......sigh.


I think your general assessment of her candidacy was correct. She was out of touch with an awful lot of Americans, and they voted.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:22 PM   #646
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,020
Want to know why Hillary lost?

Read this:

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin...ampaign=buffer
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:22 PM   #647
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't care if they take it as a criticism of them.
Well, that's tremendously condescending and that's why Democrats lost the elections. I have that on good authority.

Quote:
But that's not what's happening here, is it?
Yes, I think it is. At the national level? In newspapers? I think so. On Youtube and Twitter and ISF? Maybe you're right, but how does that translate into rage against the establishment?

Quote:
If you want to attack the entirety of "people who didn't vote for Clinton" as being racists and bigots, however, I'm going to oppose you.
Well, I'm not doing that. I'm saying that they're wrong, possibly ignorant or stupid, but not necessarily racists. They're not bothered by the racism, however. Not enough to vote for someone else.

Quote:
No, I just have no idea what you're circling around.
You're saying that being condescending to these people is the wrong way to go at it. I'm asking you how to correct the situation and aside from very vagues thoughts I've seen nothing constructive from you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:24 PM   #648
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,020
Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.


You know, they said something similar about Hitler in 1933.

Not that I am comparing Trump to Hitler.

Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:24 PM   #649
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Control for people under 18... so maybe 1/8.
Even granting 1/8, that's a far cry from 1/4 (or half, as you also variously claim).



Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'd like a link to your source please.
Here you go.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:31 PM   #650
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,860
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
That is not funny.

Well, OK - it is sort of funny in a grim non-funny kind of way.
Heard from a reporter during the campaign:

Yeah, this presidential election is brutal, but at least it's the last one that we're ever going to have.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:38 PM   #651
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This rhetoric is tiring.

Especially when you can't refute it.

Quote:
There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry". You've completely dehumanized your opponents, and have made them shallow and one-dimensional. The entire approach you use casts them all as caricatures of evil, and completely ignores their actual concerns. It is my opinion that this is largely what has driven them to vote for Trump.

Don't light a match, those straw men are highly flammable.

Quote:
I still maintain that most Trump voters are NOT bigots.

That doesn't refute their tacit support for bigotry by voting for someone who was openly expressing bigotry and choosing openly bigoted individuals for his campaign staff. You can't just handwave all that away however much you'd like to.

Quote:
I do not believe that half the population is bigoted, or tolerant of bigotry.

Evidence has been posted that says otherwise. Hell, my personal experience as a transperson says otherwise.


Quote:
Clinton's position failed to address the concerns these people have, and the discourse has been focused around insinuating that their concerns don't matter.

And what were those concerns? From what I could hear and read in the various interviews with Trump supporters, it was Mexicans stealing jobs and sucking up welfare money, Muslims coming to kill us all, Queers taking over our schools and enforcing "political correctness", Affirmative Action (read "black people") giving jobs to unqualified workers (read "black people"), "religious freedom" (aka freedom to discriminate against queers and Muslims, etc.) abortion, globalization, welfare in general, creeping socialism, and so on.

Only about half of those are not driven by bigotry.


Quote:
The discourse, both then and now, has doubled-down on vilifying and dismissing half the country.

You sound an awful lot like the people opposed to the Civil Rights movement insisting that all the marches and riots were getting out of hand, and that they should have simply taken things slowly and "understood" why white America wanted to remain segregated.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember when interracial marriage was still a major issue, and was still illegal in many states, mostly the ones who voted for Trump. I remember when "bussing" was a huge controversy, to the point of triggering violence opposition and outright riots.

Wounded Knee happened within my lifetime. White Night happened within my lifetime.

Did you miss the rest spate of "religious freedom" and bathroom laws targeted against Gay and Trans people in the midwest and south?

Have you spent much time in those places you say we should "understand" better?

(Oh, and you seem to be expanding the reach of your straw men, last time you said I was only vilifying a quarter of the country. Could you settle on a particular percentage? It would make things easier to keep track.)

Quote:
I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are bigots. I do, however, believe that most of them are frightened of terrorists.

You think that's a refutation? Fear of the "other" is the primary motivation for bigotry. Bigotry is all about fear.

Quote:
They have seen terror attacks successfully enacted against the US, France, and many other parts of the world. They've seen increased hostility toward women in Germany, perpetrated by islamic refugees.

And they've responded by setting fire to mosques, attacking Indians and Pacific Islanders and anyone with brown skin while shouting racist slurs targeted at Middle-Easterners, demanding blocking immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries, supporting registration of Muslims, demanding increased military intervention in the middle east and nearby regions, and generally acting suspicious toward anyone who isn't white.

Quote:
Yet when the topic is raised, it is often met with claims of bigotry by those seeking a solution - seeking some way to increase their safety.

No, very few people are demanding real solutions, they're lashing out against anyone who resembles their fear. If they wanted solutions, they wouldn't be randomly attacking brown-skinned people and demanding deportation of Muslims.

Quote:
A real concern for their safety and security is met by cries of bigotry and shouted down into silence.

Well, yes, see above.

Quote:
I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are racists. I do, however, believe that most of them are seeing their jobs moved oversees. They see an increasing population of illegal immigrants who are willing to work under the table for very little money. They view this as a threat to their wellbeing, and a reduction in their own prospects. But instead of discussing possible rational solutions to illegal immigration, they are called racists and are derided and scorned into silence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarde...willing to do.

As I said, either bigoted or profoundly ignorant. In this case, probably both.

Quote:
I also believe that many of his supporters have witnessed repeated efforts by democratic representatives and senators seeking to enact legislation that curtails their constitutional rights.

You believe entirely wrongly. In fact, except for the Second Amendment, all the attacks on constitutional rights have come from the conservatives, or at worst, have been Bi-partisan (eg. the War on Drugs). I'd challenge you to support this assertion, but you haven't done so with any of your others, so I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:
I suspect that many of Trump's supporters have nothing at all against gay people, and would happily have equal rights for GLBTQ people.

Yeah, you really haven't been paying attention to anything that's been happening in the midwest. Google "bathroom bill".

Quote:
But it's not something that directly affects them. I suspect that many of them are quite supportive of equal rights for minorities and women. But it's not something that directly affects them. It's something they support in principle.

Unless it gets in the way of something they want, of course. And again, if anyone is not listening to those people, it's you. Otherwise you'd know just how wrong this is. At best they'd support equal rights for certain minority groups, while opposing it for others.

As for women, bring up abortion or planned parenthood in one of those places, and see how much respect they have for the rights of women.

Quote:
Why do you think it is appropriate to scorn them for failing to sacrifice their own interests in preference to yours?

I don't. I scorn them for supporting an openly and beligerently racist, sexist, homo/transphobic administration; and for voting against their own best interests out of either bigotry or iron-clad ignorance.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 04:43 PM   #652
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This is simplistic and incorrect. It is perfectly possible not to be "OK with bigotry" and still vote for someone you think is a bigot.

Not without an enormous deal of cognitive dissonance.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:07 PM   #653
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,116
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think your general assessment of her candidacy was correct. She was out of touch with an awful lot of Americans, and they voted.
It is clear that Donald Trump is in touch with an awful group of Americans. The kind that hate people based on race, religion and county of origin. Americana that are ill informed if not just plain stupid and are easily sucked in by an authoritarian bully.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:12 PM   #654
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Turnout was way down this year which seems to be a better problem to address than trying to figure out how to win back voters swayed by the Republican's platform of white primacy without losing minority voters.
Yet those "voters swayed by the Republican's platform of white primacy" were voting alongside minorities for Democrats in previous elections.

Is this the only argument the Democratic party has now?
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:14 PM   #655
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Here's another interesting little bit of news.

White evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, exit polls show

Quote:
Exit polls show white evangelical voters voted in high numbers for Donald Trump, 81-16 percent, according to exit poll results. That’s the most they have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004, when they overwhelmingly chose President George W. Bush by a margin of 78-21 percent. Their support for Trump will likely be seen as part of the reason the GOP candidate performed unexpectedly well in Tuesday’s election, according to Five Thirty Eight.

White evangelicals are the religious group that most identifies with the Republican Party, and 76 percent of them say they are or lean Republican, according to a 2014 survey. As a group, white evangelicals make up one-fifth of all registered voters and about one-third of all voters who identify with or lean toward the GOP.

One-fifth of all registered voters. That's considerably higher than the one-eighth of registered voters Allowed by Emily's Cat as having been the "basket of deplorables" responsible for Trump's election. And they went overwhelmingly to Trump.

This is a demographic that is notoriously bigoted. Notoriously anti-GLBTQ, anti-Muslim, anti-women's rights, anti-oh-so-many-things. I grew up evangelical, don't tell me I know nothing about them. And they've only gotten worse over the decades. A lot of my relatives still are, and bombard me with the crap put out by their church leaders.

There are 146,311,000 registered voters in the US. Roughly 29 million of these are evangelicals. 81 percent of those who voted (and they tend to have very high voter turnouts) voted for Trump. That's 23 million potential voters who I can confidently say incorporated some form of bigotry into their decision to vote for Trump.

ETA: Other research seems to indicate that it's closer to 30 million evangelicals who potentially voted for Trump. As well as 60% of the Catholic voters, who are a slightly smaller demographic than evangelicals, but share some of the same prejudices, including anti-GLBTQ; although it's likely that abortion would have been a more significant factor in their decision.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 16th November 2016 at 05:29 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:17 PM   #656
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Yet those "voters swayed by the Republican's platform of white primacy" were voting alongside minorities for Democrats in previous elections.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the voter demographic that turned out this year is identical to the one that turned out in 2012. I'd like to see some evidence of those numbers, because everything I've been reading says that the demographics are not the same.

ETA: Not finding specific numbers, but there are a number of indications that white evangelicals turned out in record numbers this year.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 16th November 2016 at 05:31 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:20 PM   #657
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,692
Funny how the Left has falsely charged every single Republican President with being racist, stupid, homophobic etc. Don't you realize most Americans have known of the Left's departure from the truth on these issues for some time now? You guys really need to come up with a new attack strategy and go to words. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:24 PM   #658
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wonder how long it'd take them to count the votes, then, considering they're still not done a week later.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If it was really important to count all the votes quickly, it would happen.

The population of the UK is ~64million. We vote on little bits of paper with pencils. On election night we have teams of people counting votes, and the results are known inside of 24 hours.

America has electronic voting machines in some states, and other states use paper ballots that are read electronically, it's certainly not implausible that the US could organise people to count everything inside 24 hours.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:26 PM   #659
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
It is clear that Donald Trump is in touch with an awful group of Americans. The kind that hate people based on race, religion and county of origin. Americana that are ill informed if not just plain stupid and are easily sucked in by an authoritarian bully.

You forgot hating people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:28 PM   #660
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, that's tremendously condescending and that's why Democrats lost the elections. I have that on good authority.
Wait what? How am I being condescending by saying that I don't have any concern if people take criticism directed at someone else as criticism directed at them? Honestly, if I were to criticize marplots* for things marplots has done, and you take that personally, that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes, I think it is. At the national level? In newspapers? I think so. On Youtube and Twitter and ISF? Maybe you're right, but how does that translate into rage against the establishment?
I honestly think that whatever you're trying to say, and whatever I'm hearing, bear only a passing resemblance to one another. I am not following this post at all, I'm not seeing the connection to what I've said.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, I'm not doing that. I'm saying that they're wrong, possibly ignorant or stupid, but not necessarily racists. They're not bothered by the racism, however. Not enough to vote for someone else.
If I have implied that I see you personally as engaging in this behavior, I apologize. That was not my intent. Although I do think it's a flawed assumption to assume that they're not bothered by racism. At worst, they may be bothered by racism less than they are bothered by something else. It's also possible that they are very bothered by racism, but don't believe that Trump's commentary can feasibly be translated into any kind of action... whereas they think the other candidate's commentary is more likely to be translated into action.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're saying that being condescending to these people is the wrong way to go at it. I'm asking you how to correct the situation and aside from very vagues thoughts I've seen nothing constructive from you.
I'm saying that "these people" is a horrible approach to take, right off the bat. Beyond that, I have actually suggested simple things, like trying to understand what their concerns are, and treating them with some degree of respect even if you strongly disagree with them - at least at the group level. If an individual is offensive and treats you disrespectfully, by all means, respond in kind. But grouping them all together and then taking the stance that they're not worth bothering with, and implying that they're all stupid toothless rubes who don't deserve any attention.

By all means, go ahead and say that Bob Smith (a specific person) is a stupid rube that you think doesn't merit consideration (assuming he isn't an ISF member)... but don't go out and say that the town of Bobsville are all a bunch of stupid rubes who don't merit consideration. Treat the group as if at least some of it's members are decent people. How hard is that? How is that too vague to follow?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:31 PM   #661
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Even granting 1/8, that's a far cry from 1/4 (or half, as you also variously claim).
Clinton said half of Trump's supporters. I presumed that "supporters" of either Trump or Clinton represent close to the whole population. If you want to narrow it to half the people who actually voted for either Trump or Clinton, I don't think it makes much difference.

Do you have a strong reason to think that the non-voting adults in the US held a substantially different opinion than the voters did? I grant that I'm assuming the voters are a fairly decent representative sample of the adult population at large... I don't have any reason at the moment to believe they aren't.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Here you go.
Thanks
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:38 PM   #662
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This is simplistic and incorrect. It is perfectly possible not to be "OK with bigotry" and still vote for someone you think is a bigot.
But how else can you reduce the real complex and even at times at-odds motivations and priorities of a human being down to a single one-dimensional caricature to rail at (while claiming not to be dehumanizing them)?
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:45 PM   #663
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
On top of your faulty math, 40% of Trump supporters believe black people are more "lazy" than white people, and almost 50% think black people are more violent, according to a Reuters poll in June. That's about half of his supporters being racist, which makes her statement true without even adding in the homophobes and misogynists and Islamophobes.
I'm going to say we have a problem in the US, across the board. For a more complete view of the situation, I'll add some additional quotes. Note that this is NOT a defense of Trump, nor of Trump supporters. It's simply evening out the claim.

Quote:
Nearly one-third of Clinton supporters described blacks as more "violent" and "criminal" than whites, and one-quarter described them as more "lazy" than whites.
Quote:
For example, 32 percent of Trump supporters placed whites closer to the top level of "intelligence" than they did blacks, compared with 22 percent of Clinton supporters who did the same.

About 40 percent of Trump supporters placed whites higher on the "hardworking" scale than blacks, while 25 percent of Clinton supporters did the same. And 44 percent of Trump supporters placed whites as more "well mannered" than blacks, compared with 30 percent of Clinton supporters.
I'd also point out for consideration that this poll was conducted between March and June, and included Clinton, Trump, Sanders, Cruz, and Kasich as the person that the respondent supported. The results are only being reported in the article for Clinton and Trump. There's a link to some charts, and for the most part Cruz supporters were more negative than Clinton, but not as negative as Trump, and Kasich supporters look to be pretty much on par with Clinton supporters. I don't have the numbers for them though, so I can't even make a good swag at what the aggregate response would be if you assumed all the Cruz & Kasich supporters rolled to Trump. I'm also curious why the didn't show the Sanders supporter responses.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:48 PM   #664
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You're making the mistake of assuming that the voter demographic that turned out this year is identical to the one that turned out in 2012. I'd like to see some evidence of those numbers, because everything I've been reading says that the demographics are not the same.

ETA: Not finding specific numbers, but there are a number of indications that white evangelicals turned out in record numbers this year.
It's hard to see it because the total numbers show low income support for Democrats overall. It's the shift compared to the historical performance. Non college-educated whites, lower income whites, union households in PA/IA/MI, etc. all gave less support to Democrats this year than they traditionally do.

Perhaps I should have done better at articulating that point previously.

ETA: Which goes towards the point "did they just suddenly become racist this year in particular?"

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 16th November 2016 at 05:49 PM.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:49 PM   #665
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Not without an enormous deal of cognitive dissonance.
"Vote for our guy or you're a bigot" Great rallying cry, no way that might alienate people.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:51 PM   #666
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Clinton said half of Trump's supporters. I presumed that "supporters" of either Trump or Clinton represent close to the whole population. If you want to narrow it to half the people who actually voted for either Trump or Clinton, I don't think it makes much difference.

Do you have a strong reason to think that the non-voting adults in the US held a substantially different opinion than the voters did? I grant that I'm assuming the voters are a fairly decent representative sample of the adult population at large... I don't have any reason at the moment to believe they aren't.
Just to be clear, are you asking me if I have strong reason to think that the people who did not vote for Trump hold a substantially different opinion than the people who did? If this is your question, I think the simple fact that a person chose not to vote for Trump is a strong reason to think they have a different opinion of the man than someone who chose to vote for Trump. Assuming that the people who chose not to vote (whether it was not to vote at all or not to vote for a specific person) hold the same opinion as the minority of voters who chose to vote (again whether it was at all or for a specific person) seems to me to be folly.


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Thanks
You're welcome. If you'd like, I can also direct you to the evidence that only 45% of Republicans would vote for a Muslim (opposed to the 73% of Democrats who would), or that only 61% of Republicans would vote for a Gay or Lesbian candidate (same poll), which I think is decent evidence that more than half of Republicans (not necessarily Trump supporters, though) are Islamophobic, and almost 40% are homophobic.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:53 PM   #667
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It's hard to see it because the total numbers show low income support for Democrats overall. It's the shift compared to the historical performance. Non college-educated whites, lower income whites, union households in PA/IA/MI, etc. all gave less support to Democrats this year than they traditionally do.

Perhaps I should have done better at articulating that point previously.

ETA: Which goes towards the point "did they just suddenly become racist this year in particular?"
I though you did a fairly good job. It's always difficult to articulate the impact of a delta on a population aggregate.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:54 PM   #668
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm going to say we have a problem in the US, across the board. For a more complete view of the situation, I'll add some additional quotes. Note that this is NOT a defense of Trump, nor of Trump supporters. It's simply evening out the claim.
I have to sadly agree with the highlighted. That said, be careful, you are running the risk of insulting large percentages of people, so that will make them vote Trump!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:57 PM   #669
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I have to sadly agree with the highlighted. That said, be careful, you are running the risk of insulting large percentages of people, so that will make them vote Trump!
It is a risk, I shall tread lightly.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 05:57 PM   #670
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,311
I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero. But, along with the Republican control of Congress, he can reform taxes, health care, immigration and trade. Those are important things to a large group of Americans whether you agree with them or not. Thus, many people were able to overlook his perceived bigotry (because he can't act on it) and vote for him anyway (because he can act on the things that are important to them).
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:01 PM   #671
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I though you did a fairly good job. It's always difficult to articulate the impact of a delta on a population aggregate.
If this board is representative of how somewhat intelligent people capable of rational consideration are doing (which is not all that observably different from the bulk of conversations on social media and cable news roundtables), I really need to double time it on getting a passport. Not because of Trump, he'll be terrible, but a short blip. No, it'll be because we're headed for one-party rule for a long, long time.

Oh dear, I've painted with a broad brush, haven't I...

:9

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 16th November 2016 at 06:03 PM.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:03 PM   #672
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Just to be clear, are you asking me if I have strong reason to think that the people who did not vote for Trump hold a substantially different opinion than the people who did?
No, I was asking if you have a strong reason to think that the people who did not vote have a substantially different distribution of opinions than those that did vote.

Obviously, people who didn't vote for Trump would have different opinions than those that did vote for Trump

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You're welcome. If you'd like, I can also direct you to the evidence that only 45% of Republicans would vote for a Muslim (opposed to the 73% of Democrats who would), or that only 61% of Republicans would vote for a Gay or Lesbian candidate (same poll), which I think is decent evidence that more than half of Republicans (not necessarily Trump supporters, though) are Islamophobic, and almost 40% are homophobic.
Those are some interesting numbers. Many of them are a lot more damning than I anticipated - and not just for republicans.

For example, only 64% of democrats would vote for an atheist. The only things that democrats seem to dislike more than atheists are evangelical christians and socialists.

Go ahead and call me a bigot for this one, but as a woman, I would not vote for a muslim for president. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but as a whole, it is a religion that dogmatically believes that church and state should *not* be separate. And I would fear the risk to women, GLBTQ (seriously can we come up with something catchier and easier to remember?), and other faiths. I'm surprised that 73% of democrats would vote for a muslim.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:04 PM   #673
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero. But, along with the Republican control of Congress, he can reform taxes, health care, immigration and trade. Those are important things to a large group of Americans whether you agree with them or not. Thus, many people were able to overlook his perceived bigotry (because he can't act on it) and vote for him anyway (because he can act on the things that are important to them).
I have attempted to point that out... I do not believe it was given any reasonable consideration. It appears to be no different than "tolerant of bigotry" to at least a few posters here.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:05 PM   #674
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If this board is representative of how somewhat intelligent people capable of rational consideration are doing (which is not all that observably different from the bulk of conversations on social media and cable news roundtables), I really need to double time it on getting a passport. Not because of Trump, he'll be terrible, but a short blip. No, it'll be because we're headed for one-party rule for a long, long time.

Oh dear, I've painted with a broad brush, haven't I...

:9
It's much better outside of politics. I try to spend little time here. But sometimes I can't resist the drama!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:17 PM   #675
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It's much better outside of politics. I try to spend little time here. But sometimes I can't resist the drama!
Yeah, I joined right about the time the election hit fever pitch. I should probably not let myself get drawn into just one section so much.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:23 PM   #676
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
It is clear that Donald Trump is in touch with an awful group of Americans.
Kind of scary, isn't it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:23 PM   #677
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I have attempted to point that out... I do not believe it was given any reasonable consideration. It appears to be no different than "tolerant of bigotry" to at least a few posters here.


By simply retaining the Supreme Court they can further restrict the voting rights of minorities.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:28 PM   #678
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,343
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Re: Making a voting decision that favors Trump)...

No, I did not.
Unless you specifically voted for Clinton, yes you did.

In the U.S. system, there are only 2 parties that realistically have a chance of getting their candidate elected. (There are actually advantages to that as well as disadvantages.)

If you voted for Clinton, that was the only decision that did not favor trump. But from what I've seen here, that's not what you did.

The other options:
- Vote for Trump... your choice supported a bigot
- You decided to vote for a 3rd party, or spoil your ballot, or did not vote... you should have known that in a 2 party race, failure to support Clinton means less chance for her to become elected, giving a greater chance for a bigot to be elected. Your choice supported a bigot. Indirectly perhaps, but it still benefitted him.

Its kind of like if you see an injured puppy lying in the middle of the street. You may not be directly at fault if you just let it get run over by a car, but if you had the chance to save it (with no risk to your own life), then you should be considered at least partly responsible.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 16th November 2016 at 06:40 PM.
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:39 PM   #679
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Funny how the Left has falsely charged every single Republican President with being racist, stupid, homophobic etc. Don't you realize most Americans have known of the Left's departure from the truth on these issues for some time now? You guys really need to come up with a new attack strategy and go to words. Chris B.
I don't remember thinking that about Bush Sr.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2016, 06:45 PM   #680
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,078
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Wait what? How am I being condescending by saying that I don't have any concern if people take criticism directed at someone else as criticism directed at them?
Sorry, I was being a bit flippant there, but here's my point: if, as I explained, those people take it personally that you criticize their idol or someone they look up to for "truth", then you are indirectly insulting them, even if that's not your intention. I'm basically turning your argument against you: you said you didn't care about their feelings on the matter, but that's exactly what you decry about the left ignoring the alledgedly out-of-luck Trump voters.

Quote:
I honestly think that whatever you're trying to say, and whatever I'm hearing, bear only a passing resemblance to one another. I am not following this post at all, I'm not seeing the connection to what I've said.
What I'm saying is that the insult that you argue was taken by Trump voters must have come from the establishment: Hillary's "deplorable" comment, for example. Individuals posting their opinions on the net aren't part of that.

Quote:
Although I do think it's a flawed assumption to assume that they're not bothered by racism. At worst, they may be bothered by racism less than they are bothered by something else.
Intolerance and bigotry should be among the top things that bother people when picking their leader, don't you think?

Quote:
I'm saying that "these people" is a horrible approach to take, right off the bat. Beyond that, I have actually suggested simple things, like trying to understand what their concerns are, and treating them with some degree of respect even if you strongly disagree with them - at least at the group level.
Yeah but since we're talking about millions of people, it's not like Hillary could've spoken to them individually. What, exactly, could she and her party have done to correct this situation? If you don't know, that's fine, but I don't think anyone has a clue. And as I explained earlier, with the truly irrational, whatever you do will be taken negatively.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.